Northern Marine Incident

One thing to remember with "classed" vessels, there are classes within the classification body. So a vessel can be "classed" but perhaps only with in a narrow set of criteria. Say classed for operating no more than X amount of miles offshore. And some classification agencies are know to be a bit more lenient than others. As are some agencies inspectors.

Fifty-foot waves, so what's the big deal? A good photo opportunity. One just needs to be in a capable vessel.

Capt.Bill11 said:

One thing to remember with "classed" vessels, there are classes within the classification body. So a vessel can be "classed" but perhaps only with in a narrow set of criteria. Say classed for operating no more than X amount of miles offshore. And some classification agencies are know to be a bit more lenient than others. As are some agencies inspectors.

Click to expand...

True. Whether classed or insured or regulated, this boat hadn't reached the point where any of them would have been doing stability testing. Now, perhaps some review of design in advance would be a different thing. But then in this case there would appear to have been many precautions that perhaps could have been taken but weren't.

There are also other tricks of deception some builders use. I quote from an article on Nordhavn's site as to what one builder wrote:

Their boats “are certified by ABS and Lloyd’s Register and have achieved the Bureau Veritas ‘unrestricted navigation’ category. This means they also carry a CE Category A ‘ocean’ rating and meet NMMA/ABYC standards.” What?!? ABS is very clear that it doesn’t “certify” boats and does not even look at boats smaller than 79 feet, CE is only for boats going to Europe, and NMMA is not a part of ABYC. We’ve asked magazine editors to be on the lookout for such loose mention of these standards organizations.

I've read "Built to unrestricted classification standards" or similar. Incidentally Nordhavn has built many 86's to class and estimates the added cost at $300,000.

I recommend whether classification or otherwise having someone independent helping to oversee the process. Of course, the best protection ultimately is the quality of the builder.

psneeld said:

Look at a Forida Bay Coaster (style) or the "Ferry" class houseboats by Jay Benford....

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Ferries are a captize waiting to happen

Delfin said:

Thanks Tad.

To what degree does the 10 page Roddan study represent the kind of detail needed? Also, do you find the fact that the maximum stable heel angle even if ballasted as recommended is only 65 degrees as shown in appendix 4 to be worrisome? Seems like there would be a lot of conditions I could imagine her being exposed to as the 'Ultimate World Cruiser' that might result in a greater heel angle.

Click to expand...

First of all I have no interest in criticizing anyone, I am interested in the problem and in helping people understand what happened.

To the degree that it was a snapshot 10 months prior to launch the Roddan report is fine. In my office such a report represents a file folder full of paper, which we have no access to. So the report represents a great deal we do not know.

From the report it's evident that transverse (Y) weights were not being tracked very seriously. That's not unusual. The boat was heavy on the portside, how much in reality? We don't know. A typical full weight study for a vessel of this size will run to 30 pages of data, that's not here.

Another problem is how much of the boat was included in the stability calculations (this applies to your question on adequate stability). The amount of superstructure included will make a big difference.

If you look at the Roddan report page 7, at the bottom there are some criteria and pass/fail is indicated. The standard (CFR.....) is only concerned with adequate stability up to 40 degrees heel. This CFR standard is an adoption of the same IMO standard that most of the world uses for small commercial vessels.

Years ago I did a simple stability study of a Nordhavn (55' I think) and a Diesel Duck. This was just for my own curiosity. I concluded that both boats ran out of stability at something below 80 degrees heel. So 65 does not surprise me. Again it would not be my choice given the intended use, but that's a personal issue.

Tad Roberts said:

First of all I have no interest in criticizing anyone, I am interested in the problem and in helping people understand what happened.

To the degree that it was a snapshot 10 months prior to launch the Roddan report is fine. In my office such a report represents a file folder full of paper, which we have no access to. So the report represents a great deal we do not know.

From the report it's evident that transverse (Y) weights were not being tracked very seriously. That's not unusual. The boat was heavy on the portside, how much in reality? We don't know. A typical full weight study for a vessel of this size will run to 30 pages of data, that's not here.

Another problem is how much of the boat was included in the stability calculations (this applies to your question on adequate stability). The amount of superstructure included will make a big difference.

If you look at the Roddan report page 7, at the bottom there are some criteria and pass/fail is indicated. The standard (CFR.....) is only concerned with adequate stability up to 40 degrees heel. This CFR standard is an adoption of the same IMO standard that most of the world uses for small commercial vessels.

Years ago I did a simple stability study of a Nordhavn (55' I think) and a Diesel Duck. This was just for my own curiosity. I concluded that both boats ran out of stability at something below 80 degrees heel. So 65 does not surprise me. Again it would not be my choice given the intended use, but that's a personal issue.

Click to expand...

Much appreciated. Wouldn't be my first choice either, but I just wasn't sure what was considered appropriate for someone who wants to cross oceans. 65 degrees seemed a bit skinny, but as you say, perhaps that is a personal preference based on a bit of blue water sailing and seeing some pretty big waves. I have no idea what Delfin's stability is, but believe there is more weight below the water line than above so I assume it is fine.

BandB said:

As to stability standards, I would certainly imagine they were required by the insurer in this case.

Click to expand...

I've never seen or heard of this in the US, have you? Insurers require proof of crew competence and a current survey, which never mentions stability. They may offer a discount if the vessel is "In Class", that's designed and built under survey and surveyed in the last 2 years. Or they may offer a small discount if there's a "Hull Certificate". A hull certificate just states the hull (structure only not machinery) was designed and built to a certain standard.

Also, if I was building a 90' boat for ocean travel, I'd require it being classed and that would include stability standards and require stability testing.

Click to expand...

I agree that would be a good idea and in the owner's best interests. But it's very unusual in the US while pretty much standard practice in Northern Europe. It does add considerable to the cost of the vessel.

Classification societies in general do not impose stability standards. That is done by the flag state. Thus the Roddan report on Baden refers to CFR....., (Code of Federal Regulations). In Canada we have stability standards set out by Transport Canada, in Britain it's the MCA (Maritime and Coastguard Agency). In the US there is no legal stability standard for pleasure craft of this size.

[/QUOTE]

Delfin said:

And that in the straits. My point is simply that you could probably imagine a roll of 50 degrees in inland waters since you've experienced it, so you probably wouldn't be shocked to hear that vessels get knocked down in the ocean. I mean, really? The most recent loss I am aware of is a British sailing vessel that went down in 20 foot seas on their way home from the Caribbean. Like I said, stuff happens.

4 British sailors missing at sea after yacht believed to have capsized in mid-Atlantic | Mail Online

Click to expand...

This boat capsized becaust the keel fell off. If the keel had stayed put, that vessel could theoretically get knocked down all day and still return to an upright position.

Delfin said:

Much appreciated. Wouldn't be my first choice either, but I just wasn't sure what was considered appropriate for someone who wants to cross oceans. 65 degrees seemed a bit skinny, but as you say, perhaps that is a personal preference based on a bit of blue water sailing and seeing some pretty big waves. I have no idea what Delfin's stability is, but believe there is more weight below the water line than above so I assume it is fine.

Click to expand...

This is what I mean when I wrote that stability is not intuitive. You can spend a great deal of time on a vessel and still not know her angle of vanishing stability.

Reality is that it's not a big issue. So far (and I have looked) I've not found one accident report where a pleasure craft being properly operated capsized due to normal sea conditions. Crossing a bar, going too fast, hitting something, or being subject to overloading or flooding are all the usual causes.

Another thing is that usually Naval Architects build in a margin of error. Often stability studies include just the hull. But reality is that the deckhouse will modify the stability curve and bump the ultimate stability up, in some cases quite a bit. Of course that's dependent on the house (windows) staying intact and not too much stuff inside falling onto the low side. Thus do theories go awry.....

I for one would just like to raise a glass to Tad for the wealth of expertise he brings to this forum . . . and for the civility he brings to discussions that might otherwise turn into pi$$ing contests. Thanks!

bligh said:

This boat capsized becaust the keel fell off. If the keel had stayed put, that vessel could theoretically get knocked down all day and still return to an upright position.

Click to expand...

Ah, I didn't see that report. Thank you.

Tad Roberts said:

I've never seen or heard of this in the US, have you? Insurers require proof of crew competence and a current survey, which never mentions stability. They may offer a discount if the vessel is "In Class", that's designed and built under survey and surveyed in the last 2 years. Or they may offer a small discount if there's a "Hull Certificate". A hull certificate just states the hull (structure only not machinery) was designed and built to a certain standard.

I agree that would be a good idea and in the owner's best interests. But it's very unusual in the US while pretty much standard practice in Northern Europe. It does add considerable to the cost of the vessel.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

I think it's unusual in the US up to a certain size. I would think more common on a 90', but does depend on who the insurer is. Very few US builds classed. Mostly over 125'.

As to the discounts for class, survey, stability etc. would take a long time to pay for the additional costs. We've found if you do everything perfectly as they desire you may save 10%.

angus99 said:

I for one would just like to raise a glass to Tad for the wealth of expertise he brings to this forum . . . and for the civility he brings to discussions that might otherwise turn into pi$$ing contests. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Tad Roberts said:

...
Years ago I did a simple stability study of a Nordhavn (55' I think) and a Diesel Duck. This was just for my own curiosity. I concluded that both boats ran out of stability at something below 80 degrees heel. So 65 does not surprise me. Again it would not be my choice given the intended use, but that's a personal issue.

Click to expand...

Do you remember which Diesel Duck model you studied?

Thanks,
Dan

Delfin said:

Much appreciated. Wouldn't be my first choice either, but I just wasn't sure what was considered appropriate for someone who wants to cross oceans. 65 degrees seemed a bit skinny, but as you say, perhaps that is a personal preference based on a bit of blue water sailing and seeing some pretty big waves. I have no idea what Delfin's stability is, but believe there is more weight below the water line than above so I assume it is fine.

Click to expand...

So in the end it looks like if you careful, properly prepared, pick your weather and perhaps have a little luck as well, a vessel with "only" 65 degrees of stability could cross an ocean or two on its own bottom.

Capt.Bill11 said:

So in the end it looks like if you careful, properly prepared, pick your weather and perhaps have a little luck as well, a vessel with "only" 65 degrees of stability could cross an ocean or two on its own bottom.

Click to expand...

Yeah. But don't try to launch the thing.

I think it's unusual in the US up to a certain size. I would think more common on a 90', but does depend on who the insurer is. Very few US builds classed. Mostly over 125'.

As to the discounts for class, survey, stability etc. would take a long time to pay for the additional costs. We've found if you do everything perfectly as they desire you may save 10%.[/QUOTE]

I agree. In my experience classed vessels under 120' or so are pretty rare. And as you noted any savings in insurance are off set by costs to meet class standards and then the costs of staying in class as the years go by.

Like periodically having to pull out every sea cock on the boat at the time of haul out and set them all up on a bench so the class surveyor can see that they all are in good working order. Stuff like that can jack your yard bill up real quick. Even if the boats engineer and crew pitch in to do a lot of the work.

Rambler said:

Yeah. But don't try to launch the thing.

Click to expand...

:lol: Well, I did mention being properly prepared.

It was the 462 DD. I enclose the computer models and righting arm curves below. These were done in 2008 only for myself. They are not in any way intended to be taken as critical of the builders. They are based on certain assumptions by me, and they will not hold up in a court of law...

At the time Steve Dashew had made some disparaging remarks about the stability of powerboats. I tried to find a problem and it turned out there isn’t one. These curves do illustrate the general stability characteristics of these type of hulls. Note that I have included the aft raised deck on the DD and the raised foredeck on the Nordhavn. The VCG's shown are above the indicated waterline, LCG is at wherever the LCB was at that floatation.

Both these boats show vanishing stability angles of about 85 degrees. That will change if more of the house was included, or if the loading (fuel and water mainly) and floatation changed.

Rambler said:

Yeah. But don't try to launch the thing.

Click to expand...

Which is why this thread has gone to 7 pages.

Not many of us, under any circumstances, can see spending any money, let alone big bucks, on a boat that add it is launched, a 30% list gets it to turn turtle.

It's funny to me, but also to me days a lot about the builder. NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Because I'm sure this mishap report will detail the separate things that added up to this loss, but ultimately, I don't want a boat that can't be launched with no room for error.

Wxx3 said:

Which is why this thread has gone to 7 pages.

Not many of us, under any circumstances, can see spending any money, let alone big bucks, on a boat that add it is launched, a 30% list gets it to turn turtle.

It's funny to me, but also to me days a lot about the builder. NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Because I'm sure this mishap report will detail the separate things that added up to this loss, but ultimately, I don't want a boat that can't be launched with no room for error.

Click to expand...

The defenses New World occasionally chooses to attempt are all sad. I picture someone arguing with themselves.

New World: It is not a problem with the build. We've built a lot of boats that float upright. It's New World's dollies.

New World: Is is most definitely not our dollies. We've used them before. It's your, New World, design. Your internal Architect.

New World: It is not our naval architect's fault. We asked him. He said the design is fine. It was the ramp New World chose to launch it.

New World: It most definitely was not the choice of ramp. We've launched bigger there before. It's the way New World put the ballast in.

New World: It has nothing to do with the way we placed the ballast. We do it like that all the time. It is that the stabilizer fin you New World guys installed stuck and got knocked off.

New World: It has nothing to do with the stabilizer fin. Look, it's not even dirty. It's the buyer's fault for choosing us.

New World: Yes, that's it. His fault.

New World: Absolutely. That or an act of God. He did it.

New World: Or our prior owner.

Prior Northern owner: You people are not Northern. I own the name and the assets. You are nothing.

Current New World Owner: We are so. We have the rights from you.

To Tell the Truth: Will the real Northern stand up please.

$64,000 Question: It was a lot easier when we rigged these things.

The fact is at this point we don't know the cause. The one thing we do know is that the responsibility for it is the same, whatever the cause. We also know that they are less than forthcoming with factual information and there was plenty of trouble before this. It will be ages before an official finding and even longer than that before everything is resolved legally, perhaps longer than the wait for Lebron to announce his decision.

Thanks B & B that was great. Almost thought you worked for the NYC Dept of Eduacation for a second. No wiat, they don't read off the clock. But they are professionals, they don't need the time clock, and yet they still know whne thier 6 hours and 50 mintues are up.

Sorry, another digression.

I almost forgot my point. When they released the first (and only one I've seen) video, and then told you that they had edited it. That alone increased my interest 100 fold.

Because the edit told me they know exactly the cause, because they knew enough what to edit.


They are idiots and can't even build a boat.

Tad Roberts said:

It was the 462 DD. I enclose the computer models and righting arm curves below. These were done in 2008 only for myself. They are not in any way intended to be taken as critical of the builders. They are based on certain assumptions by me, and they will not hold up in a court of law...

At the time Steve Dashew had made some disparaging remarks about the stability of powerboats. I tried to find a problem and it turned out there isn’t one. These curves do illustrate the general stability characteristics of these type of hulls. Note that I have included the aft raised deck on the DD and the raised foredeck on the Nordhavn. The VCG's shown are above the indicated waterline, LCG is at wherever the LCB was at that floatation.

Both these boats show vanishing stability angles of about 85 degrees. That will change if more of the house was included, or if the loading (fuel and water mainly) and floatation changed.


View attachment 31257

View attachment 31258

View attachment 31259

View attachment 31260

Click to expand...

Tad, this brings me back to my original question. If your assumptions are correct, from your graph the Nordhavn and Duck show ultimate stability of 87 to 90 degrees. I presume these are light ship calculations. The Baden, assuming she finished out with the additional ballast specified by Roddan would have ultimate stability of 65 degrees. Are there many vessels in this length and beam with that level of stability that are considered blue water cruisers? Is the reason why you don't see any capsized trawlers in this length because they are predominately designed with greater stability? Not picking on the designers of the Baden - just trying to understand what the parameters are for stability that are considered appropriate for crossing oceans.

angus99 said:

I for one would just like to raise a glass to Tad for the wealth of expertise he brings to this forum . . . and for the civility he brings to discussions that might otherwise turn into pi$$ing contests. Thanks!

Click to expand...

I'll second that motion! Thanks for taking the time, Tad!

Yeah, it''s great to have him pop-up here and there, no? We're a better forum for it. Of course, I'm still hoping he'll advise me on the stability factors of my three story Manatee proposal.

At some point stability is less important than seamanship, survivability of design (is it subject to easy damage and downflooding?), and just plain old everything inside including systems, crew and the ability to function and save the ship in constant seas creating large degrees of roll....including maintenance necessary to keep the engines running. Things often start breaking loose and taking out systems or causing serious damage if the crew wasn't on the ball before the weather set in.

I've been on larger vessels...USCG Cutters from 210 to 399 feet that experienced 60 degree rolls for days on end and the ships crew was down to 33% capable of even getting out of the rack. On another trip we almost jettisoned the helo while running before a hurricane and scared to turn beam to...so we ran before it for 3 days well out of our oparea.

I've been on Icebreakers where the amount of ice has created a dangerous rolling moment and had to break tons of ice off aloft to keep from rolling over.

Once you get to a certain point...like Tad said..it's external factors that usually do the boat in...not just "stability"...once a boat starts rolling beyond 45 degrees for hours on end...life aboard as you now it comes to a screeching halt and people start thinking survivability in many areas other than just rolling over.

healhustler said:

Yeah, it''s great to have him pop-up here and there, no? We're a better forum for it. Of course, I'm still hoping he'll advise me on the stability factors of my three story Manatee proposal.

Click to expand...

Needs a tuna tower.

Conrad said:

Needs a tuna tower.

Click to expand...

or at least a crow's nest.

markpierce said:

or at least a crow's nest.

Click to expand...

No Mark...you meant to say AND a crowsnest.

Tad Roberts said:

It was the 462 DD. I enclose the computer models and righting arm curves below. These were done in 2008 only for myself. They are not in any way intended to be taken as critical of the builders. They are based on certain assumptions by me, and they will not hold up in a court of law...

Click to expand...

Darn, I will call off Lawyer Daggett.

Thanks for the info.

Later,
Dan